Some rule clarification about nude filters

BrokenEagle98 said:

I think there's a disconnect in the rules. The rules page says one thing, the wiki page says another, and reality tends to agree with the wiki page. There are as of right now 12 active posts and 1376 deleted posts with the nude_filter tag, thus it appears that nude filter images are indeed not allowed. If this is the way it is, that's fine, but the rules page needs to be updated to reflect this reality.

There was a disconnect because the wiki wasn't updated after the rules were amended. As for the "reality", there are so many deleted nude_filter posts because they were banned for a very long time. Although, even during that time we still had few of them alive. So it's not rules that were in need of update but wiki, and several days ago it finally got fixed.

tapnek said:

Whoever posted in topic #1791 should probably take a look at this topic as well. I'd like jxh2154 to post his opinion here since he's the one that got nude filters banned in the first place but I doubt he posts anything anymore.

Dunno why would you need people from that thread to comment on this. First, that topic you linked is outdated. For the more relevant discussion see topic #11877. Second, jxh2154 stepped down as an admin, see topic #11334.

Moving to the main topic and my opinion on it, images should be judged based on their own quality, not category they fall into. If the editing was done skillfully and image is good enough to stand on its own, then I see no reason to deny/delete it just because it is a nude filter or some other kind of "photoshop". Besides, blanket bans are never a good idea.
I do think that nude_filter posts should be evaluated with more scrutiny compared to regular posts, simply because they frequently do have quality issues. But other than that, I support position previously voiced here by OOZ662 and NWF Renim.

Btw, this is only partially ontopic, but there is one thing in ToS that does need to be updated after all. I'm talking about
"Nude Filter: Images that have been edited by someone other than the original creator to remove clothing or censorship."
Decensored images is something very different from nude_filters. That part either needs to be removed, or separated into its own section.

MyrMindservant said:

Decensored images is something very different from nude_filters. That part either needs to be removed, or separated into its own section.

I wouldn't say they're all that different, depending on how big of a third party edit it is. Many are just as undesirable as a nude filter.

I agree with jxh2154's stance, especially regarding their artistic value (or lack thereof).

I'm not actively an admin anymore, stepped down quite a while ago (though I still have the access level). So I don't really have an official say in this anymore, and will leave it to albert and the community to decide. I haven't kept track of the changes in rules since I stepped down either, so if something has already changed, I'm not aware.

All I will say is that my opinion, for what it's worth, is unchanged from my comments in the thread seven years ago. I don't think there is any place for nude filters on danbooru under any circumstances, regardless of perceived quality. I still feel they should all be banned.

You can share my opinion in the thread if you like, but I don't want to reply directly to it, since as mentioned I'm not /officially/ an admin anymore.

Thanks.

The PM I received from jxh.
So it's pretty much up to us and we should do with this rule.
I still go with the quality part here since Danbooru calls itself a high-quality imageboard.
So it doesn't seem to be right if a good quality image gets deleted because it was altered by a third party.
We have a tag that we can use for these images nude_filter so it's pretty clear then it was changed by someone but the artist.
I think the best option is if someone posts a nude filter they should but it in the mod queue line and if the uploader didn't know it was one, another one can flag it for the reason "Nude filter" but then this shouldn't be a death flag for this upload like it was in the past.

post #2311276
Like I said in the commentary section on this upload, I think it's pretty interesting if this post can stay or not. That's such a case where the nude filter shows good quality.
But if it can stay, it's also very unfair to other nude filter uploads ^-^.

Provence said:

post #2311276
Like I said in the commentary section on this upload, I think it's pretty interesting if this post can stay or not. That's such a case where the nude filter shows good quality.
But if it can stay, it's also very unfair to other nude filter uploads ^-^.

I feel the buttocks wasn't too well done though, I can see banding even on the crappy monitor I'm using at home for break, alongside visible brush strokes, and he also obliterated the hair's cast shadow.

CodeKyuubi said:

I feel the buttocks wasn't too well done though, I can see banding even on the crappy monitor I'm using at home for break, alongside visible brush strokes, and he also obliterated the hair's cast shadow.

Yes, but is it enough to get this upload flagged (well it doesn't seem to otherwise it'd already be flagged by now)? I mean no image is perfect and most of the times there is something lost when an third party edits an picture. So I don't feel that small errors or better said it isn't an error in this case, it's just an picture like another one with small...irregularrities.

Bump this topic since there is no solution at all.

EB said:

I wouldn't say they're all that different, depending on how big of a third party edit it is. Many are just as undesirable as a nude filter.

The degree of difference and their desirability are arguable, and also vary from case to case, but this was not my point.

Decensoring edits are not part of what we define as nude_filters here. Lumping it all together in the ToS is simply wrong and misleading.
That's why we need to either remove that part or split it into a separate category/point.

I'm still with jxh2154's decision. There was a post of a "good" nude filter in this thread that was quickly dismantled under scrutiny, which goes to show that only the original artist gets it right.

I'm also curious as to why people go through the effort of filtering. If it's a wank you're after, there's plenty of fanart that do a better job. Same with coloring monochrome pages with ugly, flat hues, though once in a blue moon you get something truly excellent like Yamaiwa Shuuhai.

Is it more like "not allowing" them or are you only taking them on a higher level of observation? Since the latter one would be how I understand this rule since they are, without a doubt a third party edit. But being only a third party edit makes it in my eyes nothing else then colored images like from the artist you posted or post #2320488 (with it's child it's even a re-nude-filter because of the bikini top :o).
So, if I'm understanding this post correctly (I hope at least): If the quality is alright, then there is no reason against having here nude filtered images (since you're comparing another third party edit (which is allowed) to this case).

Hillside_Moose said:

I'm still with jxh2154's decision. There was a post of a "good" nude filter in this thread that was quickly dismantled under scrutiny, which goes to show that only the original artist gets it right.

Hmm, it seems this topic is not over yet.
If this post you mentioned in your first paragraph, this thing would be clear by now but it got eventually approved by Miene.
So it seems that there are approvers on this side who would allow this. This can't get from the table so easily then.

So...bumping this again.
I just got flagged some remaining nude filter images here, but there are still some left.

nude_filter -status:deleted
The ones which weren't flagged don't have a parent or are pending approval. What to do about them?

Oh and if someone knows better, please tell if one post was flagged without reason, since I only looked at the tags the post had. So maybe there is one post that isn't a nude filter?

We recently changed the ToS to allow nude filters, and now they're getting purged again. Maybe it'd be helpful if this site had polling, with a breakdown based on user level.

The discussion was about the ToS being changed, since I found it pretty unfair that some posts got flagged because of just being nude filter, although this ToS is in place.
Now the new administration decided to not let them allow again.
That's the gist about this whole thread.

I'm going to ask that at least two things are implemented to prevent witch hunting over nude filters.

• 1) Nude filter is not a valid reason to flag a post on it's own, it has to be nude filter and pointing out at least one or two areas on the image that identify the image as such. The details can either be pointed out in the comments or in the flagging itself, but just stating "nude filter" on its own should not be allowed. If the user can state it's a nude filter, then should easily be able to point out details.
• If a user continues to do this they'll receive a warning. If they continue after the warning they'll receive 1 week ban each time they do it.

• 2) If a user incorrectly flags as nude filter and gets deleted content that is not a nude filter they'll receive a ban.
• First time offense a warning, afterwards 1 month ban each time.

Well, I just updated the wiki page of it and just quoted what you said there.

But there should be a little message in the TOS as well, because it really is confusing there.

NWF_Renim said:

I'm going to ask that at least two things are implemented to prevent witch hunting over nude filters.

• 1) Nude filter is not a valid reason to flag a post on it's own, it has to be nude filter and pointing out at least one or two areas on the image that identify the image as such. The details can either be pointed out in the comments or in the flagging itself, but just stating "nude filter" on its own should not be allowed. If the user can state it's a nude filter, then should easily be able to point out details.
• If a user continues to do this they'll receive a warning. If they continue after the warning they'll receive 1 week ban each time they do it.

• 2) If a user incorrectly flags as nude filter and gets deleted content that is not a nude filter they'll receive a ban.
• First time offense a warning, afterwards 1 month ban each time.

How does this affect TAGGING images as nude filter, adding or removing the tag from an image without proof?

S1eth said:

How does this affect TAGGING images as nude filter, adding or removing the tag from an image without proof?

Some tags do ask that users explain why they're adding the tag, frequently they don't, but that in itself as far as I recall hasn't resulted in a ban. Regardless of that though it has always been standard practice for all tags that if a user is shown to be consistently adding or removing tags incorrectly that they'd receive a warning over it. If the user continued afterwards they'd receive a ban for tag vandalism.

Flagging an image though should be more detailed in why they're flagging to begin with. Particularly if said reason may require mods to have to look around to spot details in the image.

Is there now a hard ban against nude filters if the original post can be found and is posted here?
That means should the nude filter post then be flagged and deleted under any circumstances?